4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1958 respectively and live in Neukirchen.
5.  The applicants own agricultural real estate in Upper Austria which is dedicated green area (Grünland) in the zoning plan – therefore land that is not meant for construction purposes with the exception of buildings necessary to use the land agriculturally.
6.  On 29 July 2002, the applicants applied for a building permit for an agricultural building, stables and a riding hall to conduct horse breeding and training for therapy purposes. The mayor of Neukirchen requested an expert opinion of the Regional Agricultural and Forestry Authority (Agrar- und Forstrechts­abteilung der Oberösterreichischen Landesregierung) which, on 7 February 2003, stated that the conditions for the construction were not met by the project.
7.  On 24 April 2004 the applicants filed a new request for a building permit on the same plot. In this request the same project was presented and in addition premises for the production of brandy. This request included a business plan for the activities envisaged by the applicants and plans of the construction.
8.  On 10 August 2004, the Regional Agricultural and Forestry Authority again commented on the project.
9.  On 11 November 2004, the mayor of Neukirchen dismissed the request of 29 July 2002 as well as the request of 24 April 2004 stating that the planned construction was not permitted by the zoning plan. The applicants appealed against that decision.
10.  On 25 May 2005, the Neukirchen Municipal Council dismissed the appeal. This decision was based on an expert opinion according to which the project was uneconomical and merely a hobby and therefore not in compliance with the zoning plan for the area in question.
11.  The applicants filed objections (Vorstellung) with the Upper Austria Regional Government (Landesregierung), which quashed the decision on 17 November 2005 finding that it violated the applicants’ rights in that it was based on an unclear expert opinion.
12.  After obtaining supplementary expert opinions, on 17 May 2006, the Neukirchen Municipal Council dismissed both building requests. The applicants again filed objections.
13.  On 16 November 2006, the Regional Government dismissed the applicants’ objections against the decision concerning the first building request of 29 July 2002, quashed that decision regarding the second request of 24 April 2004 and referred it back to the Municipal Council stating that the supplemented expert opinion was still not sufficiently clear. The decision regarding the dismissal of the first request of 29 July 2002 became final.
14.  The Neukirchen Municipal Council lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court against the Regional Government’s decision on 22 December 2006.
15.  On 18 May 2007, the Neukirchen Municipal Council suspended appeal proceedings awaiting the Administrative Court’s decision on the complaint. The applicants filed objections against this decision with the Regional Government.
16.  On 6 November 2007, the Regional Government granted the applicants’ objections and quashed that decision. The Neukirchen Municipal Council lodged a complaint against this decision with the Administrative Court.
17.  Meanwhile, the applicants had filed an application against the administration’s failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde), challenging the decision concerning the suspension of further proceedings. On 21 September 2007 the Administrative Court rejected this application.
18.  On 29 January 2008 the Administrative Court dismissed the complaints by the Municipal Council against the Regional Government’s decisions of 16 November 2006 and 6 November 2007 as unfounded.
19.  On 6 March 2008, the Municipal Council requested the same expert to supplement his opinion. On 10 March 2008, the applicants filed objections against that decision with the Regional Government.
20.  On 18 March 2008 and on 15 May 2008, the applicants challenged the expert. On 10 September 2008, the Municipal Council dismissed this challenge of the expert and at the same time it dismissed the appeal against the mayor’s decision.
21.  On 9 March 2009, the Regional Government quashed the Municipal Council’s decision of 10 September 2008, stating that the (supplemented) expert opinion was still not thorough and convincing enough.
22.  On 15 June 2009, the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint lodged by the Municipal Council against the appeal decision of the Regional Government and referred the complaint to the Administrative Court on 4 August 2009.
23.  On 23 September 2009, the applicants lodged a second application with the Administrative Court complaining of the Municipal Council’s failure to decide anew on the appeal after the Regional Government’s decision of 9 March 2009.
24.  On 9 October 2009, the Municipal Council requested the applicants to provide additional information on their economic business concept as required by the newly commissioned expert.
25.  On 21 December 2009, the Municipal Council requested the extension of the time-limit for deciding on the applicants’ appeal until 13 July 2010.
26.  On 13 January 2010, the Administrative Court in the proceedings on the applicant’s complaint of 23 September 2009 ordered the Municipal Council to decide on the applicants’ appeal by 30 April 2010.
27.  As regards the complaint lodged by the Municipal Council against the appeal decision of 9 March 2009, the Administrative Court dismissed that complaint as unfounded on 23 February 2010.
28.  On 5 March 2010, the Municipal Council dismissed the applicants’ appeal and thus refused the construction permit.
29.  On 15 September 2010 the Government dismissed the applicants’ appeal and found that the business activity envisaged by the applicants did not allow for a construction under the Land Planning Act as it was not economically viable. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court. On 9 November 2010 the Administrative Court initiated preliminary proceedings.
30.  On 31 January 2012 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint as unfounded. This decision was served on 9 February 2012.